, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 188–199 | Cite as

Learning object relationships which determine the outcome of actions

  • Severin Fichtl
  • John Alexander
  • Dirk Kraft
  • Jimmy Alison Jørgensen
  • Norbert KrügerEmail author
  • Frank Guerin
Research Article


Infants extend their repertoire of behaviours from initially simple behaviours with single objects to complex behaviours dealing with spatial relationships among objects. We are interested in the mechanisms underlying this development in order to achieve similar development in artificial systems. One mechanism is sensorimotor differentiation, which allows one behaviour to become altered in order to achieve a different result; the old behaviour is not forgotten, so differentiation increases the number of available behaviours. Differentiation requires the learning of both sensory abstractions and motor programs for the new behaviour; here we focus only on the sensory aspect: learning to recognise situations in which the new behaviour succeeds. We experimented with learning these situations in a realistic physical simulation of a robotic manipulator interacting with various objects, where the sensor space includes the robot arm position data and a Kinect-based vision system. The mechanism for learning sensory abstractions for a new behaviour is a component in the larger enterprise of building systems which emulate the mechanisms of infant development.


Developmental Artificial Intelligence Vision Infant Development Means-end Behaviour Learning Preconditions 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Frank Guerin, Dirk Kraft, and Norbert Krüger. A survey of the ontogeny of tool use: from sensorimotor experience to planning. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 5(1):18–45, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. Piaget. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1936. (French version 1936, translation 1952).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Jeffrey J. Lockman. A perception-action perspective on tool use development. Child Development, 71(1):137–144, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    L. B. Smith. Dynamic systems, sensori-motor processes and the origins of stability and flexibility. In J. Spencer, M. Thomas, and J. McClelland, editors, Toward a unified theory of development: Connectionism and dynamic systems theories reconsidered. Ox. Uni. Press, 2009.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Kurt W. Fischer. A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6):477–531, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Willatts. Development of problem-solving strategies in infancy. In D.F. Bjorklund, editor, Children’s Strategies: Contemporary Views of Cognitive Development, pages 23–66. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Piaget. The Construction of Reality in the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1937. (French version 1937, translation 1955).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Benjamin Rosman and Subramanian Ramamoorthy. Learning spatial relationships between objects. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 30(11):1328–1342, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Richard S. Sutton. Verification, the key to ai, 2006. Unpublished document, available on author’s webpage /IncIdeas/KeytoAI.html.
  10. [10]
    A. Stoytchev. Some basic principles of developmental robotics. IEEE Trans. Auton. Mental Development, 1(2):122–130, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Esther Thelen. Rhythmical stereotypies in normal human infants. Animal Behaviour, 27(3):699–715, Dec 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    T. G. R. Bower. Development in Infancy. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1982.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Kristine S. Bourgeois, Alexa W. Khawar, S. Ashley Neal, and Jeffrey J. Lockman. Infant manual exploration of objects, surfaces, and their interrelations. Infancy, 8(3):233–252, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Jean Piaget. The Child’s Conception of the World. Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1929.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Harold Chaput. The Constructivist Learning Architecture: A Model of Cognitive Development for Robust Autonomous Robots. PhD Thesis, (The University of Texas at Austin, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory), 2004.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Severin Fichtl. Making Artificial Intelligence which Copies the Way Babies Learn. Master Thesis, (Aberdeen University, Department of Computing Science), 2011.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    M Rolf, J J Steil, and M Gienger. Online Goal Babbling for rapid bootstrapping of inverse models in high dimensions. In Development and Learning (ICDL), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, volume 2, pages 1–8, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Gert Kootstra, Mila Popovi., Jimmy Alison Jostate spacergensen, Kamil Kuklinski, Konstantsin Miatliuk, Danica Kragic, and Norbert Krüger. Enabling grasping of unknown objects through a synergistic use of edge and surface information. Int. J. Rob. Res., 31(10):1190–1213, September 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    J. A. Jorgensen, L.-P. Ellekilde, and H. G. Petersen. Rob-WorkSim — an Open Simulator for Sensor based Grasping. In ISR/ROBOTIK 2010 (41st International Symposium). VDE-Verlag, June 2010.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    SørenMaagaard Olesen, Simon Lyder, Dirk Kraft, Norbert Krüger, and JeppeBarsøe Jessen. Real-time extraction of surface patches with associated uncertainties by means of Kinect cameras. Journal of Real-Time Image Processing, pages 1–14, 2012.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Kourosh Khoshelham and Sander Oude Elberink. Accuracy and Resolution of Kinect Depth Data for Indoor Mapping Applications. Sensors, 12(2):1437–1454, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    R B Rusu and S Cousins. 3D is here: Point Cloud Library (PCL). In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, pages 1–4, May 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    N. Pugeault, F. Worgotter, and N. Krüger. Visual primitives: Local, condensed, and semantically rich visual descriptors and their applications in robotics. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics (Special Issue on Cognitive Humanoid Vision), 7(3):379–405, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Martin Riedmiller and Heinrich Braun. RPROP — A Fast Adaptive Learning Algorithm. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer and Information Science VII, Institut fur Logik, Komplexitat und Deduktionssysteme, Universitat Karlsruhe, 1992.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    M Riedmiller and H Braun. A direct adaptive method for faster backpropagation learning: the RPROP algorithm. IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Miroslav Kubat, Robert Holte, and Stan Matwin. Learning when negative examples abound. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Machine Learning, ECML’ 97, pages 146–153, London, UK, UK, 1997. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Severin Fichtl, John Alexander, Dirk Kraft, Jimmy Alison Jorgensen, Norbert Krüger, and Frank Guerin. Rapidly learning reconditions for means-ends behaviour using active learning. In 2nd IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics, 2012.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Matti Kaariainen. Active Learning in the Non-realizable Case. In Jose L. Balcazar, Philip M. Long, and Frank Stephan, editors, Algorithmic Learning Theory, volume 4264 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 63–77. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Donald E Knuth. Big Omicron and big Omega and big Theta. SIGACT News, 8(2):18–24, April 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Sara Stolbach. Active Learning Models and Noise. Course Paper, Columbia University, (Advanced Topics in Computational Learning Theory, COMS 6253), 2007.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Ina C. Uzgiris and J. McV. Hunt. Assessment in infancy: ordinal scales of psychological development. University of Illinois Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    E. Bates, V. Carlson-Luden, and I. Bretherton. Perceptual aspects of tool-using in infancy. Infant Behavior and Development, 3(2):181–190, 1980.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Matthew Schlesinger and Jonas Langer. Infants’ developing expectations of possible and impossible tool-use events between ages 8 and 12 months. Developmental Science, 2(2):195–205, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    P.J. Kellman and M.E. Arterberry. The Cradle of Knowledge. MIT-Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    J. M. Mandler. How to build a baby: II. conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99(4):587–604, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Denis Mareschal. Computational perspectives on cognitive development. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(5):696–708, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    Paolo Tommasino, Daniele Caligiore, Marco Mirolli, and Gianluca Baldassarre. Reinforcement learning algorithms that assimilate and accommodate behaviours: an experimental comparison. In 2nd IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics, 2012.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    A.G.E. Collins and M.J. Frank. Cognitive control over learning: Creating, clustering and generalizing task-set structure. Psychological Review, 120:190–229, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    Terry Zimmerman and Subbarao Kambhampati. Learning-assisted automated planning: Looking back, taking stock, going forward. AI MAGAZINE, 24(2):73–96, 2003.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    J. Mugan and B. Kuipers. Autonomous learning of high-level states and actions in continuous environments. IEEE Trans. Autonomous Mental Development, 4(1):70–86, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    Kira Mourao, Ronald Petrick, and Mark Steedman. Using kernel perceptrons to learn action effects for planning. International Conference on Cognitive Systems (CogSys 2008), pages 45–50, 2008.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    E. Ugur, E. Oztop, and E. Sahin. Goal emulation and planning in perceptual space using learned affordances, 2011.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    A. Ferry, S.J. Hespos, and S. Waxman. Language facilitates category formation in 3-month-old infants. Child Development, 81(2):472–479, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    S. J. Hespos and T. Piccin. To generalize or not to generalize: Spatial categories are influenced by physical attributes and language. Developmental Science, 12(1):88–95, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    Marianella Casasola. Can language do the driving? the effect of linguistic input on infants’ categorization of support spatial relations. Developmental Psychology, 41(1):183–192, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    Katharina J Rohlfing. Facilitating the acquisition of under by means of in and on.a training study in polish. J Child Lang, 33(1):51–69, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    Jean Matter Mandler. The foundations of conceptual thought in infancy. Cognitive Development, 7(3):273–285, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Wien 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Severin Fichtl
    • 1
  • John Alexander
    • 1
  • Dirk Kraft
    • 2
  • Jimmy Alison Jørgensen
    • 2
  • Norbert Krüger
    • 2
    Email author
  • Frank Guerin
    • 1
  1. 1.King’s CollegeUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenScotland
  2. 2.University of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark

Personalised recommendations